(03-02-2013 08:42 AM)Julius Wrote: Actually, the the various Hypothesis of Anthropomorphic Global Warming have proven quite weak thus far: they have shown no reasonable predictive ability. Thus, these Global Warming Hypothesis are very far from being scientific theories and, as a result, not what I'd like to see the public policy, regulation and law constructed about. While I have no doubt that human C02 emissions contribute to Global Warming, the magnitude of this warming is open to debate - and so is what, if anything, we should do about these emissions. Until then, I say we should just wait and let the data accrue and the science develop: then we'll better know what to do.

And fill sand-bags in the meantime.

Are you saying that it's better to believe - even if we're wrong - than to not believe and be wrong?

(02-02-2013 09:44 PM)BryanS Wrote: Second, the science backing the anthropomorphic theory of global warming is strong, however global warming theory has huge unanswered questions relating to how much warming will occur and what the feedbacks are that might enhance or limit the extent of warming. The uncertainty in these areas in no way means there is any reasonable doubt that CO2 emissions by humans causes global warming, but anti global warming folks have been successful in using these uncertainties to cast doubt on the whole theory.

Actually, the the various Hypothesis of Anthropomorphic Global Warming have proven quite weak thus far: they have shown no reasonable predictive ability. Thus, these Global Warming Hypothesis are very far from being scientific theories and, as a result, not what I'd like to see the public policy, regulation and law constructed about. While I have no doubt that human C02 emissions contribute to Global Warming, the magnitude of this warming is open to debate - and so is what, if anything, we should do about these emissions. Until then, I say we should just wait and let the data accrue and the science develop: then we'll better know what to do.

Uhhhmmm....the part I bolded in your reply directly contradicts your claim that hypothesis of anthropomorphic global warming have proven quite weak. You are right, there is no doubt that human CO2 emissions contribute to global warming. That is what Anthropogenic Global Warming is! And as I said, there is uncertainty as to the extent. In the other parts of my reply, I made clear to point out that those who make dire predictions are doing science a disservice, so I would agree we let more data accrue.

By your reply, you illustrate one of my main points. You are conflating the areas of uncertainty and scientific inquiry with the ideas that are more or less settled--you admit as much to what is settled. Just as in evolution, we are quite certain that evolution and new species arise out of genetic changes which occur through natural selection, but scientists fiercely debate many details such as whether these changes are slow and steady or whether they occur in spurts (so called punctuated equilibrium).

And let's get down in writing what Anthropogenic Global Warming(AGW) really means. All this phrase means is that:
-human activities have increased the concentration of CO2
-increases in C02 have a warming affect on the planet's climate.

Those are the two hypothesis that are held in wide agreement among AGW research scientists. Scientists overwhelmingly do not dispute these two claims. As you correctly point out, the debate is the extent of the affects of this warming, feedbacks that may alter the affect of increased CO2, other factors besides humans, etc. The extent of warming might not be enough to warrant extreme responses as some political activists want, or it could be significant and require us to modify our behavior accordingly.

The one problem with doing nothing about global warming because of the uncertainty of its extent is that if the warming is significant, the affects are uncertain and we might not be able to manage. We know from the geological record that climate in some areas of the planet has changed quite a lot over long periods of time. The reason AGW is a concern is that the change in global CO2 concentrations has been faster than ever occurred in the geological record. We are, by emitting large amounts of CO2 and changing the concentration in the atmosphere, essentially conducting an experiment in global warming in real time with no way to predict the results. That doesn't concern you?

(03-02-2013 11:39 AM)BryanS Wrote: Back to the original topic of the post, I still stand by my first post and see the opposition to global warming by Christians as a misguided defense of creationism by trashing science in general.

"Misguided" would then be the biggest understatement I've ever heard. In my opinion, that would be inexplicable, if going off of the generally observed irrationality and stupidity.

There really isn't a great way to refute science in general, in general. The greatness of the scientific process, from the intellect behind it, to the advantages of it, is that it prevents that ability, or maybe just the need, more accurately. I'm also talking if we are being practical.

If you wanted to trash science there are two extremely, at least relatively, simple and easy ways: 1) Blatantly and simply, come out for faith and against science; 2) Problem of induction, making a pretty legitimate argument as to why, philosophically, science (or at least the good shit that people, that supporting science, get out of it) is at a very minimum not logical, and possibly, irrational.

And further, those Christians still go out of their way to show Global Warming is wrong (or just certain aspects), by using science .

That would be the point in the act when even the gullible people say, "Hey!". You can't use the scientific process to attempt to come up with evidence to refute claims made by opponents, in an attempt to discredit science overall. Or can you? Especially, when you have opponents that are also, in terms of their religion, on the same side as you, i.e., there are Christians that just reject the idea that science even needs to be discredited.

The Paradox Of Fools And Wise Men:
“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser men so full of doubts.” ― Bertrand Russell

(03-02-2013 01:25 PM)TrulyX Wrote: That would be the point in the act when even the gullible people say, "Hey!". You can't use the scientific process to attempt to come up with evidence to refute claims made by opponents, in an attempt to discredit science overall. Or can you? Especially, when you have opponents that are also, in terms of their religion, on the same side as you, i.e., there are Christians that just reject the idea that science even needs to be discredited.

Quote:The one problem with doing nothing about global warming because of the uncertainty of its extent is that if the warming is significant, the affects are uncertain and we might not be able to manage. We know from the geological record that climate in some areas of the planet has changed quite a lot over long periods of time. The reason AGW is a concern is that the change in global CO2 concentrations has been faster than ever occurred in the geological record. We are, by emitting large amounts of CO2 and changing the concentration in the atmosphere, essentially conducting an experiment in global warming in real time with no way to predict the results. That doesn't concern you?

I swear, this sounds just like Pascal's Wager - except I will be burned by "Mother Earth" instead of Damned by Jesus should I be wrong. In any event, I am being presented with the option to "Believe" without evidence in order to hedge the horrible consequences that would occur should I be wrong.

(03-02-2013 01:25 PM)TrulyX Wrote: If you wanted to trash science there are two extremely, at least relatively, simple and easy ways: 1) Blatantly and simply, come out for faith and against science; 2) Problem of induction, making a pretty legitimate argument as to why, philosophically, science (or at least the good shit that people, that supporting science, get out of it) is at a very minimum not logical, and possibly, irrational.

I once saw Dinesh D'Souza make an attack on the validity of Reason and Science during a debate: it was quite shocking. I had always thought Dinesh was pretty smart and not some intellectual lightweight. He makes a Similar attack on Reason and Science in his new Book: "What's So Great about Christianity". As a result, I figured that the best way to beat D'Souza in a debate was to encourage him to make this kind of attack so that he could actively offend any potential supporter who had even half a brain. Sometimes the other side does all your work for you.

Quote:The one problem with doing nothing about global warming because of the uncertainty of its extent is that if the warming is significant, the affects are uncertain and we might not be able to manage. We know from the geological record that climate in some areas of the planet has changed quite a lot over long periods of time. The reason AGW is a concern is that the change in global CO2 concentrations has been faster than ever occurred in the geological record. We are, by emitting large amounts of CO2 and changing the concentration in the atmosphere, essentially conducting an experiment in global warming in real time with no way to predict the results. That doesn't concern you?

I swear, this sounds just like Pascal's Wager - except I will be burned by "Mother Earth" instead of Damned by Jesus should I be wrong. In any event, I am being presented with the option to "Believe" without evidence in order to hedge the horrible consequences that would occur should I be wrong.

Comparing global warming to Pascal's Wager is a red herring. Pascal's Wager assumes a complete lack of evidence so that one can think of the problem probabilistically. That global warming due to CO2 happens is rock solid. How much happens is open to more discovery, and there is some evidence, though not conclusive, to suggest the extent of the warming.

There can be a real cost to taking action that mitigates CO2 releases. Because of these costs, the prudent thing to do would be to look for no-cost or low cost ways to reduce CO2 emissions until the threat posed by the warming is more clear. Sometimes the alternative is win-win. The natural gas boom in the US for instance is a great way to both reduce CO2 emissions and lower the cost of energy.

What I think is appropriate as a response to global warming may not be all that different from you. But I also am not willing to put blinders on and ignore the evidence.